That strategy’s in tatters after the Democrats nixed one of the governor’s nominees to two open seats on the seven-member panel last week. But it was doomed from the beginning.

Christie began with a classic blunder: He negotiated with himself. The Democrats were demanding that he name two minority candidates. Christie kowtowed to that demand by nominating a Korean-American and an African-American, an openly gay one at that. The governor seems to have assumed this was a package deal: Take both or take neither. But last week, the Democrats unwrapped the package.

The Democratic majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the nominee most likely to have conservative leanings, Phillip Kwon. The Dems also made it plain they want one of the nominees be a Democrat.

That means there’s just one opening for a Republican. And if the Democrats have to name one Republican, then why not Bruce Harris? Christie has been telling his fellow Republicans that Harris is a stealth conservative. But in the two months since he was nominated, no other Republican has seen the slightest evidence of that.

So let’s assume the Dems decide Harris is the best Republican nominee they’re likely to see. Once on the court, Harris would never have to answer to the governor again. He would likely do what justices appointed by other Republicans have done — move to the left.

A great man once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And Christie is ignoring history here. Most liberal chief justices in recent history were appointed or reappointed by Republican governors trying the same tactics as Christie.

The court’s activist era began almost 40 years ago when Republican Gov. William Cahill appointed former Democratic Gov. Richard Hughes as chief justice. Liberal as he was, Hughes was outdone by Deborah Poritz, Christie Whitman’s handpicked chief justice.

Instead of pointing out that history, Christie got into an argument with Democrats over the party background of prior appointees. The Dems say there has always been a 4-3 split among Democrats and Republicans. True enough, but for much of recent history, there’s been a 7-0 consensus in favor of activism.

Christie is not going to change that trend unless he picks up that Etch A Sketch and shakes it. What he should do now is what he should have done in the beginning: Nominate one candidate at a time. Don’t give the Democrats a menu. Give them an ultimatum: Pick this conservative or the next conservative will be even more conservative.

This could lead to a stalemate. So what? There’s been a stalemate since 2010. That’s when Christie refused to reappoint a Democratic justice and Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) responded by declaring he would not give the governor’s nominee a hearing.

(Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-Ledger)Steve Sweeney: He who laughs last laughs best.

If Christie really were the tough guy he purports to be, he’d have done what Barack Obama does regularly: Make a recess appointment. According to Ed Hartnett, a professor at Seton Hall Law School, the New Jersey Constitution gives our governor the same power as the president to make recess appointments.

Christie left that seat unfilled, though, apparently trusting Sweeney to reciprocate by letting him fill the next two openings. But Sweeney was hovering in the hearing room last week, maintaining party discipline as the Democrats shot down Kwon.

In the process, they also shot down Christie’s entire plan for the judiciary. For three years now, the governor has been promising Republicans he would name judges who would reverse such activist decisions as the Abbott school-funding case and the Mount Laurel affordable housing case.

Kwon took no position on those cases. That didn’t matter. The Democrats cited Christie’s comments as reason enough to oppose his nomination.

As of last week, everyone learned who gets to work the dials on that Etch A Sketch. If the governor’s not going to be allowed to write on it, he might as well give it a good shake.

ALSO: If you're wondering why a lot of conservatives are upset with Christie's nominees, think back to the 2009 Republican gubernatorial primary. Conservative Steve Lonegan stated that he regarded the court's intrusions in areas such as school-funding to be unconstitutional. Lonegan said he would ignore the court when it tried to exercise the powers constitutionally dedicated to the executive and legislative branches.

Christie ridiculed Lonegan's stance and insisted he would change the makeup of the court. Here's a quote from the Star-Ledger's coverage of the campaign:

"We are radically going to change the Supreme Court," he said, noting that if elected he would be responsible for replacing two retiring judges and evaluating another two who are up for re-nomination. "We will examine their records and see if they hold up to the standard. If not, I will have the opportunity in my first term to replace them with judges that interpret the law, not make the law."

Christie has spent his first two-plus years letting the court tell him how to run the state.

The judges are still making the law, and Christie is dutifully following it.